Yes, it is my treatment of circumstantial evidence of Al-qeada's "support" for McCain, in order to deepen the US recession that they supposedly caused mind you, is the trivial part of this story. What the heck makes you think I am not dealing with the subject at hand soberly? Posting such things online, whether password protected or not, seems like it is just begging for someone in the media to pick it up and run with it. Such things are taken with a grain of salt in the best of times, the fact that this is occurring right before a presidential election makes the likelihood that this is purely a piece of propaganda even more likely.Even if it were to be taken at face value you why in the world would you frame your own personal presidential decision upon what they have said? When you are taking your cues for who to choose as president from a terrorist web site, that is when you know they have won.As for my opinions, I believe them to be in line with the increasing ability of McCain to sideline his own candidacy for president after having chosen to spend the last few weeks making his candidacy into and a referendum on the associations of Barack Obama. It is because I am thinking of this ordeal in a sober frame of mind that I think that guilt by association is not a valid line of argument for either choosing in favor or against a candidate (barring exceptions that I am sure are out there). For my own reasons I have little tolerance for BS arguments from candidates, be they Obama Ron Paul or whomever you wish, exactly because they allow "issues" like whether or not a site connected to Al-qeada actually meant what they said about preferring McCain as president. There are 13 days until our president is chosen and this is easily the most pivotal moment of my [relatively short] life. Yes I might be over reacting, yes I am opinionated, but do not confuse either of those with me not taking issues seriously. The criticisms I level at the candidates are equaled to the disappointment I might have for two absolutely amazing men sinking below the standards I believe they are capable of maintaining. I'm happy to expand endlessly on anecdotes like this so long as we realize that these are not pertinent issues.

Paul W.: This is a sobering subject - so could you drop your bloated opinion of McCain's incompetent campaign for just one minute. Everyone already knows about your disdain for the Republican candidate.

I am actually surprised that this blog even bothered to republish this story, I looked at it and laughed. I laughed only because McCain had claimed that Hamas had endorsed Obama so we shouldn't vote for who they told us to vote (I also laughed at the idea then), but my chuckles this time were imagining the scrambling going on within the McCain camp to establish that what is said abroad is merely anecdotal evidence of what fringe groups believe at best and pure propaganda at worst. The fact that the campaign reacted so strongly also shines light on how dangerous a game "guild by association" really is, it can turn on you with each press release and is especially unproductive when your opponent's positives go up in the process (as Obama's appear to since the early days of the Democratic primaries).

Terrorists do not have the power to destroy the world. The U.S. and Soviet Union did, but managed to avoid doing it. Terrorists at most can target one city and inspire fear elsewhere. While the security services should be forever vigilant against attacks, speculation about Al-Qaeda's preferred candidate only makes Al-Qaeda's job easier. It is tragic that Al-Qaeda most likely successfully influenced the 2004 Spanish elections through bombings (with an assist from Aznar's boneheaded insistence that ETA was responsible), and it would also be a travesty to allow Al-Qaeda to influence an American election without even carrying out an attack.Note: I don't think the Osama Bin Laden tape in 2004 made a difference, Bush had a money and ground game advantage, as well as a poll lead up to election day -- /> no surprise he won.

sgw: I am very sorry for your haunting experience. I don't care what Al Qaeda says about our domestic elections, either. I would think that moderate Iraqi Muslims are more concerned with Al-Maliki than Jim Woolsey's specualations. What terrorist bloggers may or may not be thinking plays no part in U.S. elections. This is completely inappropriate to be brought up as a topic for discussion.

I suppose it should be said:I do not care what Al-Quaeda says about our domestic elections!I am a New Yorker, and I directly experienced the destruction of the Twin Towers. I smelled the smoke, I felt the concussions, and I choked on the ashes. I saw the second plane hit. I watched as friends were murdered. I personally hate Al-Queada more than any other group in the world. I only care about what they say in regards to the N.S.A. finding them, and calling in air strikes.I think that Barack Obama would be better suited to find the actual perpetrators of 9/11 than John McCain. This is a my personal opinion (there are reasonable arguments on both sides: it's up to your own judgement). But one thing is certain: we should not be unduly influenced by what these murderous [expletive deleted] say about our own democratic political processes.

The point here is that extremism rises out of fear and mobilises around villians. In that sense, Al Qaeda needs George Bush, and the American Right needs Bin Laden. And to the extent that McCain perpetuates Bush doctrines, his election would perpetuate Al Qaeda's philosophical mandate and the geopolitical conditions that incubate its growth.

This truly a tangled knot.Al-Qaeda is claimed to want McCain, on the theory that he'll keep fighting and exhaust the US's wealth, a la the USSR in Afghanistan.Not to be outdone. McCain's group then says that Al Qaeda doesn't want him, because he will keep fighting.This is reminiscent of Catch 22.

McCain's mind-set comes across loud and clear - I happen to be S. E. Europe, where there are many moderate Muslims (most of whom are about as devout as the average French Catholic or German Lutheran). They have noted McCain's attempts at sounding tolerant (and I apologize for the need to paraphrase, but I'm sure everyone can recall the incident):

Important to note: Jim Woolsey is the former CIA chief who claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and the 1993 WTC bombing. And, as far as I know, has not retracted these public statements.Not exactly the best spokesperson for discussing Al-Qaeda.